What We Need to Do

Like many of my conservative and libertarian friends, on Election Day found me with cautious optimism.  I hoped that the combination of Obama's awful record on the economy, individual freedoms, lack of transparency and more, along with Romney's accomplishments and moderate record as governor of Massachusetts would be enough to secure a Republican win.  As we all now know, our hopes did not pan out.  Though our nation is still divided almost 50/50 as to what we, the people, believe is the right course, on the electoral map, Obama and the Democrats won big.  Republicans failed.

For days, I have been discussing this with other conservatives, libertarians and liberal friends.  What happened?  What - if anything - can those of us who want small government and fiscal responsibility do?  How do we combat the forces of a primarily liberal MSM, union support, immigration changes, and for some reason, the personal inability of so many Republican candidates to "sell" themselves in contrast to Democrats?

We need to address as many of these issues as we can and look for solutions - with deep focus on the liberal press and how to combat it.  Still - there is something that Republicans can do immediately that I believe would help enormously in winning elections.  They can extend to the social arena what they do to the fiscal side:  freedom of choice and the right of all Americans to live their lives as they believe is best.

John Hinderaker, of Powerline blog fame, is a conservative attorney in Minneapolis.  No one can deny his commitment to conservatism.  Yet, Hinderaker realizes that without this change, wins for Republicans will shrink and no turn around is possible.

If questioned about abortion, conservative candidates should focus on the areas where liberal positions are extreme. Thus, for example, a candidate could say:

I have always been opposed to abortion on moral grounds. Frankly, however, my opinion isn’t very relevant since the Supreme Court has held that there is a constitutional right to abortion. But there are a few areas that are still open for discussion. One of them is infanticide. It seems to me that no matter how we feel about abortion, we ought to be able to agree that babies that are born alive shouldn’t be killed. And yet the Democrats haven’t been willing to join us in opposing infanticide. President Obama voted against a bill that would have outlawed infanticide when he was a state senator in Illinois, and most Democrats, including my opponent, are in favor of partial-birth abortion, which is nothing but infanticide under a different name. So I suggest you ask my opponent: is he willing to buck his party and come out against infanticide, including partial birth abortion?

If Republicans consistently answer questions about abortion in this manner, or something similar, reporters will stop asking them. One more thing: no politician should ever try to instruct voters on gynecology or obstetrics. Just don’t do it. Ever.

Gay marriage is often lumped together with abortion, but in reality, it is a very different issue. For one thing, while there is no specifically conservative case for abortion, there is a conservative case for gay marriage. For another, while popular opinion is turning away from abortion, it is rapidly falling in line behind gay marriage. In my view, there is little reason to stand in front of this particular locomotive. It is true that the family is in crisis and our civilization may well be going down the drain, but not because of gay marriage; rather, because close to half of all American children are now born to unmarried women.

Republicans can take a big-tent approach to gay marriage by emphasizing process. If the time comes when a majority of people want to recognize gay marriage, so be it. At the end of the day, voters can define marriage in whatever way they choose. Republicans, meanwhile, can unite in opposing any resolution of the issue by judicial fiat. We can say: some Republicans are for gay marriage, some Republicans are against it; but we all agree that the issue should be resolved by the people and their elected representatives. While the party takes a hands-off approach, private groups, churches and others, can try to influence public opinion in one direction or the other, a task that is better suited to them than to politicians.

I do believe that a critical reason why Romney lost was because of how Democrats were able to paint the Republican party.  Liberals that I know - intelligent, thinking people - really are convinced that Republicans want to focus on making abortion illegal and on continuing to battle against equal rights for gays.  Although many of these liberals are concerned about our economy - these private choices trump the latter. 

Even if you are a social conservative, I must ask you this.  Is it superior for Republicans to remain "pure" on these social issues - and continue to lose elections to candidates like Obama, with his record?  Or - would it be better for social conservatives to be able to fight for what they believe in their community and houses of worship - and have politicians like Romney and Ryan leading us?

 

 

Comments

[task list]

Hey there nice improvement!!

It’s difficult to get knowledgeable folks with this matter, and you be understood as you recognize that which you are discussing! Thanks..

[David Fryman]

Infanticide? Democrats don't opposing murdering children? When did this happen?

[Peg]

David, some do not. I must admit that I am one who thinks that late term partial birth abortion, done without significant need to the mother's health, is infanticide. And yes; some Democrats support this procedure, irrespective of details.

Then there are the "after birth" abortion folks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html

[David Fryman]

Infanticide means killing a child after birth, usually within a year. (I checked Webster's; feel free to check others.) According to Hinderaker, as you quote, "we ought to be able to agree that babies that are born alive shouldn’t be killed." That's not late-term abortion. No need to for a Democrat (at least outside Australia) to "buck his party" to be against killing children. That's absurd.

[Peg]

Yes, most definitions that I saw say that infanticide is the killing of an infant, up to 1 year after birth. (Guess they figure after that point, it's no longer an infant.)

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Infanticide

And - surely you are aware that Obama, when he was in the Illinois legislature, voted against a bill that would have protected infants born alive from a botched abortion?

Also. You do not have to be from Australia to be a supporter of "after birth abortion." Peter Singer, a U.S. professor, is another:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

[David Fryman]

Yes, I've read Singer. And I'm sure we can dig up some other crazies too. But as a campaign strategy, I don't get it. Hinderaker seems to think this is some Democratic trend that needs to be "bucked". Are Democrats lining up to kill babies in his world? What in the world is he talking about?

[Peg]

So do you define President Obama as a "crazy"? He's the person who more than once refused to vote in favor of a bill protecting infants born alive.

I will try to help spell it out for you, David. Hinderaker is attempting to give Republicans superior responses to politicians asked about abortion. Frankly - I do not agree with him. I think that the response should be "This is an issue where intelligent people can disagree. Our party respects this, and thus is not going to overturn the law of the land (Roe v Wade). Nevertheless, our party respects life and shall do so whenever possible."

Our government needs to focus on the enormous issues facing us right now. While abortion is an issue very important to some - discussing specific details in campaigns has not been a winner for Republicans.

When some Democrats do support bills that others may think are infanticide, then they should deal with that directly. Otherwise - a low profile is more of a winning position for them.

[David Fryman]

Are you talking about partial-birth abortion or infanticide? First, I thought Hinderaker was just using an inflammatory term for partial birth abortion. Then he said "come out against infanticide, including partial birth abortion", which implies that infanticide was a broader category that included, among other things, certain abortion procedures.

Just to be clear, infanticide has a clear medical meaning. The infant has to have been born. You're welcome to argue that abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent (although I would disagree). But don't misuse language to make your point.

Also, do you really believe Obama supports infanticide. By all indications, he opposed that legislation because he thought it would infringe on abortion rights. Not because he's pro baby killing.

[Peg]

David, I don't know who you are nor your background, etc. Nevertheless, a great many words and definitions are not 100% clear. Partial birth abortion is the partial delivery of a live fetus through the birth canal. One can definitely argue that the process involves an infant that is being delivered - and then killed. That is not a "misuse of language" - that is judging when exactly is the moment that a fetus is "delivered" and "born alive" versus still being alive, yet within the womb.

As for Obama - frankly, I don't really care what his personal beliefs are. What I care about is how he governs. When he had the chance, he voted against a bill to protect infants born alive.

He uses Roe v Wade as an excuse for his vote. But - as you can see, FactCheck states that his assertion doesn't hold water:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

Plenty of other pro-choice politicians voted for this bill. So - one can only surmise that Obama holds the right of a woman to have an abortion at any point in a pregnancy and under many wide reaching circumstances as a higher value than the right of an infant, born of a botched abortion, who nevertheless is still alive.

In any case - I stand by the original point of my post. Small government politicians should be for "small government" in fiscal and personal issues. Of course, that being said, at some point, lines must be drawn.